The Court quashed an order refusing renewal of a firearm licence, holding that petty criminal cases with paid fines do not justify denial. The authority is directed to reconsider the application within one month.
Impugned order set aside; direction to 1st respondent to reconsider renewal application within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 24TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.5739 OF 2019(N)
PETITIONER:
P.B.MOHANAN AGED 64 YEARS S/O P.A.BALAKRISHNAN, PANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARIYARAM P.O., CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR-680 721.
BY ADVS. SRI.SAJI KURIACHAN SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR-680 001.
2 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THRISSUR-680 001.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
GP. SMT. K.M RASHMI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WP(C).No.5739 OF 2019(N)
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction or order quashing Exhibit P3.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents or such of them to renew the licence to the petitioner to possess a gun, as requested for, under the Arms Act and Rules; for a further period of 3 years within a time schedule.”
learned Government Pleader.
WP(C).No.5739 OF 2019(N)
3
The learned counsel places reliance on a decision of this Court in Jose Kuttiyany vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2015 (3) KLT 780), in support of the contention that the provisions of Section 17 of the Arms Act shall not be pressed into service on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. It is submitted that in the instant case, there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner and that the cases referred to were only petty cases where the fine was also paid by the petitioner.
“5. It is submitted that Section 13(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 provides that the Licensing Authority on receipt of an application for grant of licence shall call for a report from the Officer-in-Charge of the nearest police station on that application. Also Sub Section (2-A) of Section 13 provides that the licensing authority, after such enquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, and after considering the report received under Sub Section (2) shall either grant or refuse to grant the
4
WP(C).No.5739 OF 2019(N)
license. Having given due consideration to the provisions mentioned above, and after affording an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner, and considering all the facts, such as report on the application and eligibility, the Additional Magistrate, who is the renewal authority has taken the final decision to reject petitioner's application for renewal of his Arms Licence. As per decision No.C5-58637/17/K.DIS dated 03.08.2018, the Additional District Magistrate, Thrissur, passed the order and it was despatched to the petitioner on 09.08.2018.
It is also contended that Section 18 of the Arms Act provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the licensing authority
5
WP(C).No.5739 OF 2019(N)
can file an appeal before the Land Tribunal Commission and therefore that this writ petition is not maintainable.
I have considered the contentions advanced. This Court has repeatedly held that the rejection of an application for grant or renewal of arms licence can be only in terms of the specific provisions of the statute. What is stated in the impugned order as a reason for rejection of the renewal application is that the petitioner is an accused in several criminal cases, the numbers of the criminal cases are referred to in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. It is clear that criminal cases referred to in Ext.P4 certificate of the Station House Officer, are petty cases where the petitioner has remitted the fine.
In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the contention to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled to renewal of license because of the pendency of the several criminal cases against him is completely untenable and unsupported by any materials. Moreover, this Court in the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner has held that in the absence of any finding to the effect that
6
WP(C).No.5739 OF 2019(N)
there is any chance of endangering of public piece, safety and security, the provisions of Section 17 cannot be pressed into
service to deny an arms license or renewal. It is also trite law that the existence of an alternate remedy, by itself will not bar the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the above view matter, the impugned order is set aside. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1 application preferred by the petitioner for renewal of arms license, taking note of the specific provisions of Section 14 and 15 of the Arms Act. Orders shall be passed, after hearing the petitioner also, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
Bng/14.02.2020
WP(C).No.5739 OF 2019(N)
7
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.12.2017. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF MERIT DATED 16.9.2012. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.8.2018 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 16.5.2018 ISSUED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF ARMS REGISTER.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pendency of petty criminal cases with paid fines justifies refusal to renew an arms licence under the Arms Act.
Whether jurisdiction exists under Article 226 despite the availability of an appeal before the Land Tribunal Commission.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jose Kuttiyany vs. Land Revenue CommissionerFollowed¶25
Jose Kuttiyany vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2015 (3) KLT 780)
4 provisions across 1 enactments
P.B.Mohanan
The District Collector Thrissur
Additional District Magistrate Thrissur
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
